4 TID Banica Eva Iatu 2 2019

TERRITORIAL IDENTITY AND DEVELOPMENT
Volume 4 / No. 2, Autumn 2019

ISSN 2537 - 4850
ISSN–L 2537 - 4850
PERCEPTIONS OF GREEN AND SMART URBAN TRANSPORT

ISSUES IN ROMANIAN CITIES: A PRELIMINARY EXPLORATORY
ANALYSIS
Alexandru BĂNICĂ
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Iași, Faculty of Geography and Geology, ROMANIA
Romanian Academy - Iași Branch, Geography Group, ROMANIA
alexandru.banica@uaic.ro
Mihail EVA
mihail.i.eva@gmail.com
Corneliu IAȚU
corneliu_iatu@yahoo.fr
DOI: http://doi.org/10.23740/TID220194
ABSTRACT
Urban transport is one of the most unsustainable activities in Romanian cities. Green and smart mobility solutions
could help them in becoming more sustainable. However, it is generally acknowledged that successfully implementing
green, smart and sustainable solutions depends highly on local stakeholders’ engagement and public acceptance.
Against this background, the current study explores stakeholders’ perception and media coverage of some urban
transport issues in Romanian cities. Our approach is only exploratory as it is not aimed at testing hypothesis, but
rather at 1) exploring stakeholders’ opinions concerning the state of urban mobility in Bucharest, Iași and Cluj-Napoca,
and at 2) identifying the main urban transport issues reflected in local newspapers from Iași and Cluj-Napoca. Results
concerning stakeholders’ opinions suggest, inter alia, an overwhelming influence of local authorities and transport
engineers in the decision-making process, a fact that is contrary to sustainable and good governance practices. Urban
transport issues reflected in local newspapers pinpoint the high importance of public transport in Romanian post-
socialist cities, a rather incipient emergence of green and smart practices, and some significant differences in the
propensity of inquired cities to modernise their urban transport services.
Keywords: sustainable urban mobility, stakeholders’ perceptions, tag cloud, local newspapers, survey
Cite this article as: Bănică, Al, Eva, M. & Iaţu, C. (2019). Perceptions of Green and Smart Urban Transport Issues in Romanian Cities: A
Preliminary Exploratory Analysis. Territorial Identity and Development, 4(2), 58-75. DOI: http://doi.org/10.23740/TID220194
INTRODUCTION
During the last decades, the sustainability of cities has been in the centre of urban policies, as a
need to balance urban development and environmental protection (Hiremath et al., 2013). In
this endeavour, the transformation of transport into a sustainable practice is a key challenge
that is recognized as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) adopted by United
Nations Member States in 2015. The contribution of transport is acknowledged to be essential
and explicitly implied by SDG target 11.2: “By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible
and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public
Alexandru BĂNICĂ, Mihail EVA, Corneliu IAȚU
59
Perceptions of Green and Smart Urban Transport Issues in Romanian Cities: A Preliminary Exploratory Analysis
transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children,
persons with disabilities and older persons” (World Bank Group, 2016, p. 43).
To attain this target, cities should be capable of engaging various stakeholders in the innovation
process on a very broad range of activities, fostering a governance system centred on citizens,
but also aiming to put into place sound ecosystems that will produce valuable (but
unquantifiable) services (Bria, 2012; Angelidou, 2014). The United Nations highlighted this idea
during the Habitat III conference in Quito 2016. Promoting smart cities as a new paradigm for
development is also a rather new policy direction that could support the transition towards
more sustainable and resilient urban areas (UN-Habitat, 2016, p. 45). Meanwhile, the EU
Transport Policy has also explicitly stated that transport sector should be integrated in the future
clean, digital and modern economy, and, therefore, a comprehensive and updated strategy for
sustainable and smart mobility is needed (EC, 2019). Therefore, urban policies now aim not only
at attaining sustainability but also at encouraging smart mobility, which may (or may not)
overlap with sustainability goals.
The challenge now relies on putting into place such visions. From a broad perspective, two main
approaches have been implemented so far (Sultana et al., 2019): one that is based in managing
the offer of transport services (heavily relying on technological innovations) and one that targets
the management of the demand (heavily relying on changing social behaviour towards more
sustainable practices). It is now acknowledged that policies aiming at managing the offer have
not succeeded in tackling unsustainable transport activities (Chapman, 2007; Sultana et al.,
2019). This is due mainly to the fact that technological improvements in reducing energy
consumptions and pollution have been offset by increasing demand.
On the other hand, implementing policies aiming at changing social behaviour is much more
challenging for at least two reasons. First, the implication of different stakeholders is essential in
order to have clear and coherent results. Urban mobility experts and experienced practitioners
can contribute with their knowledge to the development and implementation of innovative
mobility solutions such as smart infrastructure, autonomous vehicles, and vehicle sharing that
could urgently and radically transform the urban transport landscape (Ruprecht Consult, 2019).
Second, sustainable, smart, and green solutions must be largely accepted by the population in
order to become a day-to-day practice. Against this background, the current paper first surveys
the local stakeholders’ opinions concerning the state of urban mobility in a post-socialist urban
context (taking as case studies Bucharest, Iași and Cluj-Napoca). In the second part, it explores the
main urban transport issues reflected in local newspapers from Iași and Cluj-Napoca.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The complementarity and interconnectedness, but also the competition between smart and
sustainable cities are being debated as the goals declared by smart cities promoters are similar
to those proposed in sustainable urban development strategies. However, in recent years, one
can see that an increasing number of cities have shifted from sustainability approaches, that are
found to be too general, towards smart targets (Marsal-Llacuna, Colomer-Llinàs & Meléndez-
Frigola, 2015). Nevertheless, the approaches are far from completely overlapping. Numerous
smart city strategies lack an explicit environmental dimension while predominantly highlighting
social and economic issues (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017). Moreover, scholars define smart cities in
60
many ways (Albino, Berardi & Dangelico, 2015) and only some definitions reflect an obvious
relationship with the sustainability targets and goals.
Generally, smart cities strategically capitalize on the Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) developments, seeking to achieve wellbeing, to increase effectiveness and
competitiveness on multiple social-economic scales. Smart cities integrate not only products but
also services (i.e. platforms and applications), that need smaller investments and are also very
adaptable to changing societal needs (Angelidou, 2014). Using ICT can make communities more
interconnected while their urban habitat can become more comfortable, attractive and safe
(Lazaroiu & Roscia, 2012).
In this regard, smart cities have knowledge-intensive and innovative strategies able to increase
the socio-economic, logistic and ecological performance and competitiveness of cities (Kourtit
& Nijkamp, 2012).
To a certain degree, there is an overlap and even a cross-fertilization between the two concepts
as smart cities aim also at being greener and green cities imply the resource efficiency and the
clean technologies promoted by smart mobility approaches (De Jong et al., 2015).
Another critique that is being addressed to smart city approaches is that they emerge from a
certain ideological background of ‘green technology’, ‘universal infrastructure’ and ‘ubiquitous
computing’ and aim to put into an advantage and to enlarge new technologies market with no
consideration towards their wider social and environmental impacts (Viitanen & Kingston,
2014). Moreover, smart technologies would create advantages for the private firms that
produce or commercialize the infrastructure while marginalizing the social categories that do
not possess the skills or do not want, by any reason, to use these edge technologies (Colding &
Barthel, 2017). Plus, using certain technologies such as virtual spaces could change social
interactions which transform spatial and temporal linkage creating a “non-place urban realm”
(Carmona et al., 2010). This implies a change not just of urban realities, but also of their
perception, which, finally, results in changing urban identities.
Technological innovation is generally aiming at integrating the development of infrastructure
and buildings with a certain physical design, advanced technologies, modern amenities and
other best practices of urban planning (Pentikousis et al., 2011; Angelidou, 2014). Nevertheless,
the replication of certain technological solutions can be risky. One solution will not suit for all
cities. Meanwhile, technological innovation should also be socially accepted (Figure 1).
Integrating technological innovation in social behaviour is based on the need of collaboration
among private actors and population and the engagement of the public, to design more liveable,
sustainable, and smart cities (Sassen, 2011). This is the reason why bottom-up approaches would
accelerate the innovation process. Moreover, it is stated in the literature that demand-driven
approaches ware preferred by the most successful smart cities rather than supply-driven
strategies (Angelidou, 2015).
As a consequence, the users-profile approach of technology is needed: technology should be
responsive to individual needs and diverse skills and interests of users (Bria, 2012; Roche et al.,
2012; Angelidou, 2015), but also “environmentally friendly” in itself. Therefore, the acceptance
of new technologies and their actual impact on greening the cities should be assessed.
By integrating the two emerging city planning directions, Smart Green Cities (SGC) is a concept
that was included in urban development models based on the utilization of social and
technological capital for more developed and prosperous urban agglomerations (Angelidou,
2014). Consequently, the European Commission’s “smart city” relies on green mobility that
61
implies, inter alia, energy efficiency and the use of renewable forms of energy for the large urban
areas (ESC, 2012). It is a response to some major social and environmental issues the cities
confront with: increasing energy use and emissions, barrier effects of transport infrastructure,
traffic congestion, noise and accidents, the expansion of transport infrastructure replacing green
areas or existing built environments (Næss & Vogel, 2012).
Figure 1: General framework of green smart city approach

Source: own representation
“Smart” and “green” approaches for sustainable mobility in cities would include: modernization
of public transport fleets, enhancing the efficiency of the public transport system, the larger-
scale use of electric cars and bicycles, increasing bike using and sharing, car-sharing and car-
pooling services, public transport and general traffic monitoring, optimizing parking lots, etc.
(Casini, 2017).
Nevertheless, a broader view should be considering the promotion of sustainable and
“ecological” transport. Holden (2007) argues that “green” vehicles and infrastructure are not
always climate and environmentally friendly, especially if the productions and consumption
balance within their life cycle are taken into consideration.
It is highly needed that green and smart dimensions to be integrated into various aspects of city
development to co-create the image of the city to outsiders but also residents (Chan & Marafa,
2017). To be sustainable, the plans and the measures regarding urban transport should be
acceptable to the public as they imply changes in travel behaviour (Corpade et al., 2012).
The current paper tries to analyse, from different perspectives how ecological balance and
technological innovation are integrated into urban life by using official statistical data, analysing
urban mobility strategies, assessing the perception of urban stakeholders and the impact of new
approaches on urban image reflected by local newspapers.
62
The importance of perceptions and media representations in pushing forward or in being a

barrier against promoting change in urban transport has been argued by different scholars. The
identification and screening of urban stakeholders and their opinions that play a role in
influencing smart cities design were pursued before, but there are some limitations. It is a fact
that most of the studies questioning the perception in these fields are extensively focusing on
governments, businesses, and research organizations and less on citizens (Marrone &
Hammerle, 2018). Previous research conclusions converge towards the need to discuss not only
on technical green and smart but also on a more human perspective that could enhance
collaboration and induce acceptability of new solutions (Angelidou, 2015).
Thomas et al. (2016) highlight that a clear definition of smart cities is still missing from everyday
vocabulary, while Soma et al. (2018) discuss the role of a better knowledge among a diversity of
stakeholders in promoting the transition towards more sustainable urban practices. The mass-
media discourse can be a driver that can change public perception and make citizens more
aware of the need for promoting smarter and more sustainable cities. In this regard, Monroe
(2017) argues that the newspaper’s narratives “reveal concerns with not just how people moved
through the city, but with the everyday configuration of a rational, modern, biopolitical order”
(p. 1). Other approaches can also emerge to a greater extent in the future. For example,
Tomaszewska & Florea (2017) stress social media to be mined to integrate into the decision-
making process the citizens’ perceptions regarding the public transport system. Meanwhile,
even if many possible approaches can relate green and smart solution to their social
acceptability, the challenges from conceptual, technical, social perspectives, and the importance
of general context have to be taken into account.
THE EUROPEAN AND ROMANIAN CONTEXT

The challenges of building green and smart cities
Cities in Central and Eastern European countries inherited or acquired numerous problems in
different areas such as technical and economic (poor transport infrastructure, a lower degree of
innovation, insufficient investments), social (increasing social disparities, a lower urban
governance performance) and environmental (congested traffic and air pollution, low and
decreasing coverage with green areas, etc.). Sustainable and smart city solutions could tackle
some of these problems. However, smart cities solutions are still viewed as a novelty in the
countries of the post-communist block (Sikora-Fernandez, 2018). For example, according to a
report of the European Smart Cities Organization (ESC, 2020), Romanian cities are still at the
beginning of developing and implementing smart solutions. In fact, during the first phase (1999-
2012), only a few cities had initiatives in implementing smart technologies (Hunedoara, Iași,
Piatra-Neamț, and Sinaia). After 2012, other major cities with a high demographic, cultural, and
industrial potential (Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca, Brașov, Timișoara, Craiova, and Sibiu) followed this
path in integrating smart solutions (Batagan, 2012). In general, as in this particular cases, smart
mobility is one of the main directions of the concept and most often the solutions that are
already implemented aim at a more efficient and faster transport, in direct connection with the
issues regarding traffic jams, pollution and quality of urban public transport. Most of the projects
concern the optimization of the parking lots and payment for parking, traffic monitoring, public
transport fleet monitoring, and car charging stations.
63
The Romanian cities are worth considering as they epitomize all the above-mentioned
difficulties and rank very low at European level when it comes to green and smart development.
Most Romanian cities are not meeting the EU requirement of a minimum of 26 m3 of green areas
per inhabitant (Ghenai, 2012) and rank very low according to the overall Green City Index, as
well as according to indexes reflecting sustainable transport and air quality fields (EIT, 2012;
Bănică et al., 2020). Indeed, the shrinkage of green areas (Ianoș et al., 2015; Petrișor et al., 2016;
Picioruș, 2015) and the increasing urban mobility demand are nowadays two of the greatest
challenges that Romanian cities must overcome.
Romanians use less private cars (28% – the 2nd lowest rate in EU) and are more inclined to use
public transport (22% use it at least once a day – 4th highest rate) and to walk (81% walk at least
once a day – 7th highest rate) (European Commission, 2012). Nevertheless, these figures–which
seem positive ̶ do not come from the existence of healthier and greener cities, but rather from
lower motorization rate and lower financial resources that the population can allocate for personal
mobility. However, as Romania is passing through a period of robust economic development, the
middle class is gaining in size, the motorization rate is rapidly rising and the process of residential
urban sprawl is flourishing (Iațu et al., 2011). Consequently, one can notice increasing rates of
urban mobility that demand sustainable and/or smart solutions. Against this background, a new
policy instrument – the sustainable urban mobility plan – has been adopted by Romanian cities
following the recommendations of the EU (COM(2009)490; Tomasciuc et al., 2016).
Sustainable urban mobility plans as a main policy instrument

Urban mobility gained momentum on the EU’s policy agenda in the late 2000s, following several
decades of a continuous search for best planning solutions. The moment was marked by the
adoption of an action plan on urban mobility (COM(2009)490) and by the creation of a new
instrument for promoting it in the form of sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs). “A
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan is a strategic plan designed to satisfy the mobility needs of people
and businesses in cities and their surroundings for a better quality of life. It builds on existing
planning practices and takes due consideration of integration, participation, and evaluation
principles” (Ruprecht Consult, 2013, p. 8). The following years marked the publication of the first
(Ruprecht Consult, 2013) and second (Ruprecht Consult, 2019) SUMP Guideline, to facilitate the
dissemination and implementation of the SUMP concept across EU’s member states.
European guidelines and national initiatives could be very hard to dissociate from one another.
This is true especially in eastern countries, as sometimes the latter arises because of the former.
In this regard, tackling increasing urban mobility issues in Romanian cities is a very good example
of how European guidelines stimulate national initiatives, which, at their turn, add a personal
touch to it. Romania is formally adopting SUMPs to overcome urban mobility problems.
However, the results are not always as expected. One may have noticed the slow pace in
adopting good governance approaches in the field of urban mobility (Tomașciuc et al., 2015,
2016). Some of the main difficulties are encountered in adopting bottom-up planning
approaches and in involving all relevant stakeholders (as highlighted by Tomașciuc et al., 2015),
a fact which is supposed to negatively affect the legitimacy of adopted policies (Van Der Linde
et al., 2020).
It follows from the above that implementing sustainable urban mobility practices in Romanian
cities depends highly not only on the existence of standardized top-down incentives, but also on
the proactive engagement of local stakeholders and population. Innovative and coordinated
urban planning at all administrative levels is thus essential for achieving sustainability.
64
Stakeholders’ opinions, public opinion/acceptability, as well as media representations play their

part in assuring the successful implementation of sustainable and smart urban transport
practices. However, previous research paid little attention to these issues. Against this
background, we aim at exploring stakeholders’ perception and media coverage of some urban
transport issues in Romanian cities. The approach is only explorative as it is not aimed at testing
hypothesis, but rather at 1) exploring the opinions of stakeholders concerning the state of urban
mobility in Bucharest, Iași and Cluj-Napoca, and at 2) identifying the main urban transport issues
debated in local newspapers from Iași and Cluj-Napoca.
METHODOLOGY
The current exploratory approach assesses the transformations occurred in the area of urban
mobility from the green and smart cities concepts perspective. It first uses available official
statistical databases to highlight the main dynamics in urban transport/mobility. Second, it
applies a survey on three categories of stakeholders that could have an influence on urban
planning in the selected cities (Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca and Iași). Third, the paper briefly analyses
the public image of urban transport reflected by local newspapers. Stakeholders’ perception and
local media reflection of the subject are important, as enhancing smart urban mobility is also a
matter of political will, an outcome of the vision/perception from the part of local stakeholders
(Axelsson & Granath, 2018) and a result of local population’s participatory attitudes.
Statistical data
This study makes use of statistical data published by the National Institute of Statistics of
Romania. Data are publicly available throughout TEMPO Online database of the institute (INSSE,
2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Table 1 provides an overview of the indicators considered in our analysis
to define the actual context and some of the present challenges urban mobility faces in Romania.
Table 1: Transport infrastructure and urban mobility indicators employed in our study
Geographical level
Indicator Period Reference
National County Local
Passengers transported with INSSE

1990-2019 Y Y N
local public transport by mode (2020a)
INSSE
Town street length 1990-2018 N N Y
(2020b)
Length of modernized town INSSE
1990-2018 N N Y
streets (2020c)
1Y = data available at the specified geographical level, N = data not available at the specified
geographical level
65
Exploring perceptions of academics, local administration and transport experts

The perception of local stakeholders was evaluated using a qualitative method that is largely used,
i.e. questionnaire survey (Ilovan & Doroftei, 2017). The survey was applied online and took into
consideration nine big Romanian cities, but most of the results refer to three important cities in
Romania: Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca and Iași. Therefore, the present analysis will concentrate on
these three cities. Most of the answers came from the academic environment, i.e. teaching staff
and researchers that activate in domains that imply human mobility and transport.
A total of 140 questionnaires were validated, more than a half being from academics, while local
administration and transport experts account for 38% of the respondents (Figure 2).
(a) (b)
Figure 2: The structure of the sample used for the survey by: (a) Field of work; (b) city
The geographic distribution of the answers is not very well balanced as most of the answers
came from the cities of Iași and Bucharest. Answers from Western geographic regions of
Romania came from three different cities: Cluj, Oradea and Timișoara (22% of the total).
Most of the respondents have a good experience of working in their fields that are related, more
or less, to transport systems (Figure 3). A number of 100 answers came from stakeholders that
have more than 10 years’ experience in their fields. Thus, most of the opinions came from
respondents that are supposed to have a good knowledge on urban mobility issues related to
their cities and, at the same time, that are better positioned to evaluate current/recent trends
in the field.
60
50
no. of respondents
40
30
20
10
0
0-3 3-10 10-20 20-30 over 30
Figure 3: The structure of the sample used for the survey by years of experience in work
66
The reflection of urban transport issues in local newspapers

Finally, our methodological approach completed the multi-faceted exploration of how green and
smart mobility are represented in public by an overall scan of the local press. We only took a
comparison between Iași and Cluj-Napoca to acknowledge if there were patterns in associating
urban transport to an ecologic or technology-oriented perspective.
Aspects related to urban transport image in Cluj-Napoca and Iași were also explored by
employing content cloud analysis of local newspapers. Content cloud, also called ‘word cloud’
or ‘tag cloud’, is an exploratory qualitative data analysis (Cidell, 2010), aimed at summarizing
the content of documents by computing word frequencies and representing them visually.
When combined with geographical location, “content clouds provide a powerful way to
summarise and compare information from different places on a single issue” (Cidell, 2010). The
last five years witnessed plenty of studies that employ content cloud analysis. As a matter of
fact, this technique has been recently employed in geographical studies to inquire, inter alia,
issues related to identities of cities as reflected in news articles (Oliveira Capela & Ramirez-
Marquez, 2019), sense of place dynamics reflected in daily newspapers (Buchanan, 2009) and
local environment perception reflected in crowdsourced photo geodata (Dunkel, 2015).
The objective was to highlight the main 100/50 keywords employed in articles dealing with
issues of urban transport. A number of 74 local newspaper articles were selected for the analysis
(37 for each of the two cities). One well-known and representative local newspaper was selected
for each of the two cities: “Ziarul de Iași” and “Monitorul de Cluj”. The selection of the 74 articles
was conducted following two criteria: the article was published in the online version of the
newspaper during 2010-2020, being one of the first 37 articles in Google search engine. The
online search was conducted similarly for the two newspapers and it was based on searching for
articles related to the word “transport”.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Outcomes of policies implemented during the last 15 years
Like most of the eastern European cities, Romanian cities have a strong legacy of public transport
(ECORYS, 2006). However, between the fall of the communist regime and the accession into the
European Union, one can hardly speak about urban planning strategies at the local level. Thus,
in the first phase, we analysed statistical data on urban transport infrastructure and mobility
over the last 15 years to identify the main outcomes of actions implemented during this period.
As a general trend, one can notice that fossil fuel transport was given priority during the last
decades. Busses and minibuses were preferred, while the infrastructure for electric transport
modes (trams, trolleybuses, metro, electric buses) was given less attention, although the highest
increase in total number of passengers was registered by metro transport (Figure 4). This came
with the price of decreasing quality of transport services and lower number of passengers, most
notably in the case of the number of passengers transported by trams and trolleybuses. The only
underground network is currently under operation in Bucharest. The number of passengers
dropped sharply during the 1990s, but then underwent a revival during the first part of the
2000s. Further extensions of the Bucharest Metro system are under construction, while the
Municipality of Cluj-Napoca is taking into consideration the possibility of building its first
underground Metro line (Metro Report International, 2020). Meanwhile, the transition of the
buses fleet from fossil fuels towards more environmentally friendly technologies is taken into
67
account as investments in electric buses are being made by local authorities in Iași, Cluj-Napoca
and Bucharest (among other cities) (VEGACOMP, 2020).
(a) (b)
Figure 4: (a) Evolution of modal split of urban public transport in Romania (own elaboration,
according to data from INSSE, 2020a); (b) Evolution of the number of passengers transported
with local public transport (own elaboration, according to data from INSSE, 2020a)
Local administrations implemented numerous projects since Romania joined the EU. In fact,
during the last 13 years, the largest Romanian cities underwent advanced more in implementing
European policies, which resulted in important investments in urban mobility projects. Yet,
these investments focused more on building critical transport infrastructure than on developing
smart transport networks and services. This should not be surprising as in most cases critical
infrastructure was missing, as suggested in Table 2. Moreover, the intensification of urban
sprawl added pressure on local authorities for building new roads serving new residential areas.
Table 2: Percentage of modernised* roads within each city

City 1990 2000 2007 2013 2018
Bucharest 44.76 46.02 52.44 73.56 73.96
Cluj-Napoca 51.17 47.37 79.69 94.79 95.78
Iași 66.60 68.13 69.32 71.88 73.14
*Modernised town streets (km) = streets with shaped-stone, asphalt, or concrete covering. The parts paved
with shaped stone include coverings of cubic, parallelepiped stone or stone of other regular shapes (according
to data from INSSE, 2020b, 2020c)
In the early 1990s, Cluj-Napoca had only half (51%) of the road network covered with shaped-
stone, asphalt or concrete, while Iași (67%) and Bucharest (45%) were also suffering from lack
of a fully modern network of transport infrastructure. However, starting with early 2000s, Cluj-
Napoca underwent an accelerated process of urban development, including a modernisation
process of the transport network. In 2018, almost the entire length of the road network has
been modernised (95.78%), while Iași is now lagging behind (with only 73.14%).
Investments in transport infrastructures were not part of any integrated local transport strategy
during 2007-2013 financial period, as it is the case starting with the new financial period. In the
new financial framework (2014-2020), the main instrument used to promote a coherent and
sustainable development of cities is the SUMP. However, their adoption during the last six years
encountered numerous obstacles, of which the lack of tradition in good governance approaches
stands apart.
68
Scholars’, local administration’s and transport experts’ opinions on urban mobility issues
The three cities of Romania that were chosen as case studies are evolving at different paces, with
Cluj-Napoca taking the lead in sustainable urban mobility. According to questionnaires, the main
stakeholders’s perception supports this statement. Cluj-Napoca is a leading city for all the
indicators we took into consideration (Figures 5 and 6). Bucharest and Iași are lagging far behind,
without a clear distinction between their perceived performances: Iași has a better perceived
public transport and a better perceived intelligent signalling, while Bucharest is viewed as assuring
a higher quality of transport infrastructure in the central area, a higher degree of interconnectivity
and better performance in terms of exclusive lanes for public transport (compared to Iași).
Figure 5: The average scores for different topics of urban transport in the analysed cities
The adoption of different solutions for increasing the efficiency of urban transport from both
technological and ecological points of view is also differently perceived among the three cities.
Cluj-Napoca is once again performing far better than Iași and the capital city. Bikes rental, the
tracking of public transport with GPS, real-time schedules and exclusive lanes for public
transport are measures that had the highest rate of success in implementing. By contrast, in Iași,
only intelligent signalling and traffic lights and bicycle infrastructure were introduced to a certain
degree, while Bucharest is perceived to lag in the implementation process.
Exclusive lanes for public transport
Schedules displayed in real-time transport stations
The endowment of transport means with GPS
Bike rental places
Bike lanes
Electric buses or minibuses
Intelligent signaling / Traffic lights

0 1 2 3 4
IAȘI CLUJ-NAPOCA BUCHAREST
Figure 6: The degree of implementing certain innovations in public transport in three

important Romanian cities – average scores (0 = not implemented, 5 = fully implemented)
69
Although the general perception is that traffic has a significant negative impact on air quality
and life quality in the city (Figure 8), a very high percentage (40%) of respondents would prefer
good accessibility by car over life quality (Figure 7a). At the same time, 37% of the total number
of respondents acknowledges that they know about the existence of at least one impact
assessment of traffic air pollution on health (Figure 7b).
(a) (b)
Figure 7: (a) Prioritizing between accessibility by car and life quality in the urban environment;
(b) Knowledge about the existence of impact assessments of traffic air pollution health effects
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 8: The perception of traffic contribution to air pollution in cities (scores 1-10)
(1- major negative impact, 10 - no negative impact)
Indeed, Figure 8 shows an overwhelming contribution of local authorities and transport experts
in the decision-making process. By comparing this fact against the conceptual background
defined by Ruprecht Consult (2013, 2019), we can conclude that the actual decision-making
process resonates more with the traditional planning of urban mobility than to the sustainable
planning of it.
70
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Local Engineering Public or NGOs Citizens Others
authorities teams private
consultants
Figure 9: The contribution on planning the actual transport system (Sum of scores, that were
expressed in the questionnaire on a 1 to 5 scale)
Furthermore, the high influence of local authorities and engineering teams (Figure 9) suggests a
rather top-down approach, whereas a bottom-up one would be more desirable. Some recent
studies even describe the SUMP effort in Romania as being a “catching up” process, arguing that
“because of the lack of general education on the mobility issue of the population, businesses,
technicians and the political class, this catching up appears as an imported concept, not a home-
grown need and phenomenon, and it occurs with little coherence or coordination” (May et al.,
2017, p. 9).
The reflection of urban transport issues in local newspapers

Content cloud generation allows us to depict the representative keywords related to urban
transport in each main local newspaper from Iași and Cluj-Napoca. Keywords and concepts
employed in various discourses are important in building urban identity. As Oliveira Capela and
Ramirez-Marquez (2019, p. 74) stated: “an important aspect of how cities develop their
identities is based on the exchange of information through a variety of sources. Individuals hold
opinions and knowledge of a place by watching movies, meeting residents or tourists, watching
the news, reading newspapers, magazines, and blogs”. Furthermore, “local community
information is critical to maintaining civic engagement and participation” (Han et al., 2014, p. 1).
Results show that, in both cases, the main keywords employed reflect issues related to public
transport (“public”, “line”, “user”, “person”, “passenger”, “free”) (Figure 10). This could be
interpreted in the light of the relative importance of public transport in Romanian post-socialist
cities, that still rely a great deal on public transport compared to western ones. However, it can
also be interpreted as a bias coming from the chosen keyword (“transport”), which might have
led to the exclusion of articles strictly dealing with road traffic and pedestrian mobility (i.e.
articles that might not employ the word “transport”).
A closer analysis of the top 50 keywords (Figure 11) employed in the case of the two cities shows
the same similarity related to the importance of public transport. However, there are two
notable differences.
71
Figure 10: Most frequent 100 words in the case of Cluj-Napoca and Iași respectively
Figure 11: Most frequent 50 words in the case of Cluj-Napoca and Iași respectively
The articles from “Monitorul de Cluj” do employ words related to the metropolitan area of Cluj-
Napoca (“metropolitan” and “Florești”), while such words are absent in the case of Iași. This
pinpoints to the fact that the local media of Cluj-Napoca might identify their city as being
metropolitan to a higher degree compared to the newspapers of Iași. Another interesting fact is
revealed by two words reflecting issues of modernization of public transport services: “card”
and “pass” (“abonament”) are among the top ten keywords employed in the case of Cluj-
Napoca, while in the case of Iași, “card” is absent and “pass” in less frequent (the 36th rank).
However, in the case of Iași, we found the word “application”, although it is not very frequent
(the 28th rank). Such issues are hard to be related to urban identity; however, they show a
greater propensity from Cluj-Napoca Municipality to take practical steps towards promoting
smart and sustainable solutions, a fact which is in line with the results from our questionnaire.
72
CONCLUSIONS
This study has explored the stakeholders’ perceptions and the local newspapers coverage of
some aspects related to smart and sustainable urban mobility in three major Romanian cities
(Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca and Iași). Results reported in the current paper are preliminary.
However, they pinpoint some interesting facts that could be the start for more in-depth studies.
Stakeholders’ perceptions lead us towards the following conclusions:
First, there is an overwhelming influence of local authorities and transport engineers in the
decision-making process, a fact that is contrary to sustainable and good governance practices.
The decisive role in urban management is thus taken by these two stakeholder categories, while
other professionals are hardly integrated into the decision process. Therefore, a significant part
of stakeholders questioned complain of being ignored (or not informed) during the planning
processes and decision making. However, all categories of stakeholders’ state that they are
willing to contribute to promoting environmentally friendly transport.
Second, stakeholders’ perceptions suggest that in all three cities, some “traditional” problems
of urban mobility such as those related to urban air pollution are still perceived to be major (a
fact which is in line with official statistical data concerning air quality in urban areas). This could
be interpreted as a consequence of the fact that none of the three studied cities succeeded in
limiting the impact of high use of individual passenger cars.
The second section of the exploratory analysis ̶ the content analysis of local newspapers
coverage of transport issues ̶ pinpoints the high importance of public transport in Romanian
post-socialist cities for the general public, but also a rather incipient emergence of green and
smart practices. The latter information is also confirmed by the stakeholders’ perceptions, who
suggested that the implementation of smart green mobility in Romania is at an early phase in
both simple measures and complex IT-related equipment installation.
Finally, according to stakeholders’ perceptions and local newspapers coverage of urban
transport issues, the inquired cities envisage different stages in planning and implementing
sustainable transport solutions. Overall, in the last 10 years, Cluj-Napoca showed clearer signs
of sustainable modernization and proved to be more open to smart and green solutions, while
in Iași and Bucharest these processes also occurred, although at slower paces.
REFERENCES
AHVENNIEMI, H., HUOVILA, A., PINTO-SEPPÄ, I., & AIRAKSINEN, M. (2017). What Are the Differences between
Sustainable and Smart Cities? Cities, 60, 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.009
ALBINO, V., BERARDI, U., & DANGELICO, R. (2015). Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives.
Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
ANGELIDOU, M. (2014). Smart City Policies: A Spatial Approach. Cities, 41, S3–S11.
ANGELIDOU, M. (2015). Smart Cities: A Conjuncture of Four Forces. Cities, 47, 95–106.
AXELSSON, K. & GRANATH, M. (2018). Stakeholders’ Stake and Relation to Smartness in Smart City Development:
Insights from a Swedish City Planning Project. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 693–702.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.001.
BĂNICĂ, A., ISTRATE, M., & MUNTELE, I. (2020). Towards Green Resilient Cities in Eastern European Union Countries.
Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 12(1), 53-72. https://doi.org/10.37043/JURA.2020.12.1.4
73
BATAGAN, L. (2012). The Use of Intelligent Solutions in Romanian Cities. Informatica Economica, 16, 4, 37.
BRIA, F. (2012). New Governance Models towards an Open Internet Ecosystem for Smart Connected European Cities
and Regions. Open Innovation (pp. 62–71). Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media,
European Commission. Retrieved April 10 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/open-innovation-2012
BUCHANAN, C. (2009). Sense of Place in the Daily Newspaper. Aether: The Journal of Media Geography, 4, 62-84.
CARMONA, M., TIESDELL, S., HEATH, T., & OC, T. (2010). Public Places Urban Spaces. The Dimensions of Urban Design.
London and New York: Routledge.
CASINI, M. (2017). Green Technology for Smart Cities. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 83, 12014.
CHAN, C.-S. & MARAFA, L.M. (2017). How a Green City Brand Determines the Willingness to Stay in a City: The Case of Hong
Kong. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(6), 719–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1236768
CHAPMAN, L. (2007). Transport and Climate Change: A Review. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(5), 354-367.
CIDELL, J. (2010). Content Clouds as Exploratory Qualitative Data Analysis. Area, 42(4), 514–523.
COLDING, J. & BARTHEL, S. (2017). An Urban Ecology Critique on the “Smart City” Model. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 164, 95–101. https://doi.org/10.10-16/j.jclepro.2017.06.191
COM(2009)490 final. Action Plan on Urban Mobility. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
CORPADE, A.-M., CORPADE, C., & IONESCU, C.-T. (2012). Challenges for Sustainable Mobility in Cluj-Napoca
Metropolitan Area, Romania. Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning, 3(2), 181–186.
DE JONG, M., JOSS, S., SCHRAVEN, D., ZHAN, C., & WEIJNEN, M. (2015). Sustainable–Smart–Resilient–Low Carbon–
Eco–Knowledge Cities; Making Sense of a Multitude of Concepts Promoting Sustainable Urbanization. The
Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 25–38.
DUNKEL, A. (2015). Visualizing the Perceived Environment Using Crowdsourced Photo Geodata. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 142, 173–186.
ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT (EIT) (2012). European Green City Index: Assessing the Environmental Performance of 30
Major European Cities. Retrieved April 10 2020, from http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/de/greencityindex.htm
ECORYS (2006). Study on Strategic Evaluation on Transport Investment Priorities under Structural and Cohesion Funds
for the Programming Period 2007-2013, No 2005.CE.16.0.AT.014, ECORYS Nederland BV, Rotterdam,
November 2006. Retrieved April 18 2020, from link: https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/project/study-strategic-
evaluation-transport-investment-priorities-under-structural-and-cohesion
EUROPEAN COMISSION (EC) (2019). Mission Letter. Commission of Transport, 1 December 2019. Retrieved April 18
2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/president-elect_von_der_leyens_mis
sion_letter_to_adina_valean_1.pdf
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) (2012). Communication from the Commission. Smart Cities and Communities–European
Innovation Partnership. Brussels. Retrieved April 18 2020, from
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/initiatives/doc/2012_4701_smart_cities_en.pdf
EUROPEAN SMART CITIES (ESC) 2012. Centre of Regional Science Vienna University of Technology. Retrieved March
18 2020, from http://www.smart-cities.eu/model.html
EUROPEAN SMART CITIES. CENTRE OF REGIONAL SCIENCE VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (2012). The Smart
City Model. Retrieved April 10 2020, from http://www.smart-cities.eu/model.html
GHENAI, C. (ed.) (2012). Sustainable Development—Energy, Engineering and Technologies—Manufacturing and
Environment. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/1404
HAN, K., SHIH, P.C., & CARROLL, J.M. (2014). Local News Chatter: Augmenting Community News by Aggregating
Hyperlocal Microblog Content in a Tag Cloud. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(12),
1003-1014.
HIREMATH, R.B., BALACHANDRA, P., KUMAR, B., BANSODE, S.S., & MURALI, J. (2013). Indicatorbased Urban
Sustainability – A Review. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17, 555–563.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.08.004.
74
HOLDEN, E. (2007). Achieving Sustainable Mobility. Everyday and Leisure-Time Travel in the EU. Aldershot: Ashgate.
IANOŞ, I., SÎRODOEV, I., PASCARIU, G., & HENEBRY, G. (2015). Divergent Patterns of Built-up Urban Space Growth
Following Post-socialist Changes. Urban Studies, 53(15), 3172–3188.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015608568
IAȚU, C., MUNTEANU, A., BOGHINCIUC, M., CERNESCU, R., & IBĂNESCU, B. (2011). The Effects of Transportation
System on the Urban Sprawl Process for the City of Iași, Romania. Urban Transport XVII: Urban Transport and
the Environment in the 21st Century, 116, 291–302.
ILOVAN, O.-R. & DOROFTEI, I. (eds.) (2017). Qualitative Research in Regional Geography. A Methodological Approach.
Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană.
INSSE (2020a). Table GOS114B - Number of Passengers Transported with Local Public Transport by Macroregions,
Development Regions and Counties. Retrieved May 10 2020, from http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-
online/#/pages/tables/insse-table
INSSE (2020b). Tabel GOS104A - Town Street Length by Counties and Localities. Retrieved May 10 2020, from
http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table
INSSE (2020c). Table GOS105A - Length of Modernized Town Streets by Counties and Localities. Retrieved May 10
2020, from http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table
KOURTIT, K. & NIJKAMP, P. (2012). Smart Cities in the Innovation Age. Innovation: The European Journal of Social
Science Research, 25(2), 93–95.
LAZAROIU, G. C. & ROSCIA, M. (2012). Definition Methodology for the Smart Cities Model. Energy, 47(1), 326–332.
MARRONE, M. & HAMMERLE, M. (2018). Smart Cities: A Review and Analysis of Stakeholders’ Literature. Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 60(3), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0535-3.
MARSAL-LLACUNA, M.-L., COLOMER-LLINÀS, J., & MELÉNDEZ-FRIGOLA, J. (2015). Lessons in Urban Monitoring Taken
from Sustainable and Liveable Cities to Better Address the Smart Cities Initiative. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 90(B), 611–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.012
MAY, A., BOEHLER-BAEDEKER, S., DELGADO, L., DURLIN, T., ENACHE, M., & VAN DER PAS, J.-W. (2017). Appropriate
National Policy Frameworks for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. European Transport Research Review, 9(1),
7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-017-0224-1
METRO REPORT INTERNATIONAL (2020). Cluj-Napoca Studies Metro Options. Retrieved March 18 2020, from
https://www.railwaygazette.com/projects-and-planning/cluj-napoca-studies-metro-options/56385.article
MONROE, K.V. (2017). Circulation, Modernity, and Urban Space in 1960s Beirut. History and Anthropology, 28(2), 188-210.
NÆSS, P. & VOGEL, N. (2012). Sustainable Urban Development and the Multi-Level Transition Perspective.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.07.001
OLIVEIRA CAPELA, F. DE & RAMIREZ-MARQUEZ, J.E. (2019). Detecting Urban Identity Perception via Newspaper Topic
Modelling. Cities, 93, 72–83.
PENTIKOUSIS, K., DONGMING, Z., & WANG, H. (2011). Network Infrastructure at the Crossroads the Emergence of
Smart Cities. 15th International Conference on Intelligence in Next Generation Networks, 109–114.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIN.2011.6081056
PETRIŞOR, A.I., ANDRONACHE, I.C., PETRIŞOR, L.E., CIOBOTARU, A.M., & PEPTENATU, D. (2016). Assessing the
Fragmentation of the Green Infrastructure in Romanian Cities Using Fractal Models and Numerical Taxonomy.
Procedia Environmental Sciences 2016, 32, 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.016
PICIORUȘ, M.D (2015). Coridoare verzi: pentru reziliență urbană și durabilitate în Zona Metropolitană Iași [Green
Corridors: For Urban Resilience and Sustainability in Iaşi Metropolitan Area]. In Bănică, A. & Muntele, I. (eds.),
Reziliență și teritoriu. Operaționalizare conceptuală și perspective metodologice [Resilience and Territory.
Conceptual Operationalization and Methodological Perspectives] (pp. 215-233). Iași: Editura Terra Nostra.
ROCHE, S., NABIAN, N., KLOECKL, K., & RATTI, C. (2012). Are ‘Smart Cities’ Smart Enough? Global Geospatial
Conference Spatially Enabling Government, Industry and Citizens, 14–17 May 2012, Québec City, Canada.
Retrieved April 10 2020, from http://www.gsdi.org/gsdiconf/gsdi13/papers/182.pdf
75
RUPRECHT CONSULT (2013). Guidelines. Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan. Brussels: European
Commission: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport. Retrieved March 18 2020, from
https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-developing-and-implementing-a-sump_final_web_jan2014b.pdf
RUPRECHT CONSULT (2019). Guidelines for Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan. Second
Edition. Brussels: European Commission: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport. Retrieved March 18
2020, from https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/sump-guidelines-2019_mediumres.pdf
SASSEN, S. (2011). Talking Back to Your Intelligent City. McKinsey Publishing. Retrieved March 11 2020, from
<http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/cities/talking-back-to-your-intelligent-city>
SIKORA-FERNANDEZ, D. (2018). Smarter Cities in Post-socialist Country: Example of Poland. Cities, 78, 52–59.
SOMA, K., DIJKSHOORN-DEKKER, M.W.C., & POLMAN, N.B.P. (2018). Stakeholder Contributions through Transitions
towards Urban Sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society, 37, 438–450.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.10.003
SULTANA, S., SALON, D., & KUBY, M. (2019). Transportation Sustainability in the Urban Context: A Comprehensive
Review. Urban Geography, 40(3), 279–308.
THOMAS, V., WANG, D., MULLAGH, L., & DUNN, N. (2016). Where’s Wally? In Search of Citizen Perspectives on the
Smart City. Sustainability, 8:207.
TOMASCIUC, A.-I., EVA, M., & IAȚU, C. (2015). Mechanisms of Territorial Governance in Post-Socialist Periruban Areas
from the Perspective of Local Public Authorities. A Case Study on Localities from the Proximity of Suceava City
(Romania). Lucrările Seminarului Geografic “Dimitrie Cantemir”, 39, 73–86.
TOMASCIUC, A.-I., EVA, M., HAPCIUC, O., & IAȚU, C. (2016). Spatial Accessibility and Public Transport Issues in Post-
Socialist Metropolitan Areas: A Case Study of Suceava (Romania). 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific
GeoConference SGEM 2016, SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings, June 28 - July 6, 2016, 2(3), 431–438.
TOMASZEWSKA, E.J. & FLOREA, A. (2018). Urban Smart mobility in the Scientific Literature—Bibliometric Analysis.
Engineering Management in Production and Services, 10(2), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2018-0010
UN-Habitat (2016). World Cities Report 2016. Urbanization and Development e Emerging Futures. United Nations
Human Settlements Programme (UNHabitat). Retrieved March 18 2020, from
http://wcr.unhabitat.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/16/2016/05/WCR-%20Full-Report-2016.pdf
VAN DER LINDE, L.B.A., WITTE, P.A., & SPIT, T.J.M. (2020). Quiet Acceptance vs. the ‘Polder Model’: Stakeholder
Involvement in Strategic Urban Mobility Plans. European Planning Studies, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1735310
VEGACOMP (2020). Smart City Scan of Romania. Retrieved May 18 2020, from https://vegacomp.ro/wpr/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/e-book_smart_city_scan_of_romania_en.pdf
VIITANEN, J. & KINGSTON, R. (2014). Smart Cities and Green Growth: Outsourcing Democratic and Environmental
Resilience to the Global Technology Sector. Environment and Planning A, 46(4), 803–819.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a46242
WORLD BANK GROUP (2016). World Development Indicators 2016. Retrieved April 18 2020, from
http://site.ebrary.com/id/11211165

4 TID Banica Eva Iatu 2 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 TID Banica Eva Iatu 2 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TERRITORIAL IDENTITY AND DEVELOPMENT

Volume 4 / No. 2, Autumn 2019

PERCEPTIONS OF GREEN AND SMART URBAN TRANSPORT

Figure 1: General framework of green smart city approach

The importance of perceptions and media representations in pushing forward or in being a

THE EUROPEAN AND ROMANIAN CONTEXT

Sustainable urban mobility plans as a main policy instrument

Stakeholders’ opinions, public opinion/acceptability, as well as media representations play their

Passengers transported with INSSE

Exploring perceptions of academics, local administration and transport experts

The reflection of urban transport issues in local newspapers

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2: Percentage of modernised* roads within each city

Exclusive lanes for public transport

Schedules displayed in real-time transport stations

The endowment of transport means with GPS

Bike rental places

Electric buses or minibuses

Intelligent signaling / Traffic lights

IAȘI CLUJ-NAPOCA BUCHAREST

Figure 6: The degree of implementing certain innovations in public transport in three

The reflection of urban transport issues in local newspapers

You might also like